I assume most are "HARD-GAINERS"

[JOHN MATRIX]

there is definitely such a thing as hardgainers and easygainers. anyone whose ever known people who work out knows this clear as day. i could list countless examples.
some people gain muscle mass far easier than others, this is a fact.

[MCWAY]

For all the so-called Hardgainers out there, I suggest you go back to the archives of MuscleMag International and look up some of Greg Zulak's articles on gaining size. My personal favorite is issue 145, his article on "Alternates".

It has a section on training and diet. Both will be of HUGE help to "hardgainers", no need for "Heavy Duty" or "H.I.T." In fact, Alternates involves training antagonistic body parts, with a rest period of 1-2 minutes between sets (i.e. chest and back, biceps and triceps, quads and hamstrings). I don't go to failure; to me, it's not necessary.

When it comes to calories, the basis is simple: it's all about gradually ingesting more calories in order to gain size. Remember John Parillo, the guy who had his clients consuming up to 10,000 calories per day.

Many critics, including Masters National champion, Jeff Everson and Ms. International, Tonya Knight, blasted Parillo for his dietary recommendations. But, it got many a "hardgainer" to pack on the pounds and achieve size and mass they never thought possible.

Go for six meals a day: Eat three of them; drink three of them. And, gradually bump up the calories. If 4000 calories don't get it done, go up to 4500; if that fails; go to 5000.

10 years ago, I had to go as high as 6500 calories per day to help me break the 200-lb. barrier, starting at 189 lbs that particular semester in college. At one point, I thought I couldn't do it, without taking anabolics, because I come from a family of skinny people.

The good thing about being an ectomorph, especially if you're young, is that you can ingest the calorie-dense foods needed for mass (whole eggs, beef, whole milk, etc.). Add three servings of a quality weight-gainer to the equation and you're in business. When I was doing the 6500-calories-per-day thing, half of those calories came from weight gainer (Mega Mass 2000, at that time).

If you're pressed for time, you may find yourself drinking more calories than you eat. I was in college 10 years ago, when I was on this diet, consuming a dozen eggs per day. Because of time constraints, I ended up making shakes from my eggs, blending them with milk and protein powder.

Above all, you have to be patient. As Zulak says, if you put on 30 lbs. in six months to a year, half of that might be fat. But, you'll be bigger and stronger, overall, and more filled out. Nobody puts on pure muscle all of the time. That doesn't mean turn yourself into a suckling pig, but don't be afraid of a little bodyfat.

Remember, if bodybuilders (even those who use anabolics) put on pure muscle all the time, there'd be no need for them to be in "precontest" mode.

[Acerimmer1]

there is definitely such a thing as hardgainers and easygainers. anyone whose ever known people who work out knows this clear as day. i could list countless examples.
some people gain muscle mass far easier than others, this is a fact.

A fact is something that can be proven. You can't prove that statement so it's not a fact.

[gibberj2]

what you're saying proves the FACT that you must be retarded. everyone knows that some people gain muscle easier than others, are bigger than others, and naturally stronger than others. you saying that what i'm saying is not a fact is saying that the complete opposite could be true. If you're right why don't we just say that everyone has the same level of testosterone, the same frame and the same metabolism.

[Agnostic007]

I wouldn't do any cardio at all. I'm at the same stage you are right now. I think the only thing you need to do is change your eating habits and add crunches once you reach the size you want. Cut out soda pop and fattening foods and keep your protein intake high. It's simple as that. 

Cardio builds a healthy heart. Cardio burns calories/fat. Unless someone is competing and getting paid to just build muscle, why in the world would you advocate not doing something that is so benificial for the body?

[gibberj2]

running or bike or whatever isn't the only cardio there is. if you're not an athlete who has to run or whatever you're better off circuit training. it's not catabolic like "cardio"

[Oliver Klaushof]

Cardio builds a healthy heart. Cardio burns calories/fat. Unless someone is competing and getting paid to just build muscle, why in the world would you advocate not doing something that is so benificial for the body?

If you have trouble putting on weight, and your goal is to build muscle - don't do cardio.

[gibberj2]

cardio is over-rated. a person who lifts weights has above average cardio compared to the non exercise population. if you bodybuild to look good and you're not an athlete you don't need to do cardio. most people play sports once in a while anyway so what's all this running like a hampster crap?

[Oliver Klaushof]

Yep.

[gibberj2]

where you from mansonvier?

[myseone]

Everything exists on a bell curve, everything! whether it be intelligence, artistic ability, height, weight, skin color, ability to build muscle, even genital size.

Some people on the left side of the curve will have less of an attribute, most in the middle will an average amount of a particular attribute, and some on the right will have a lot more of a particular attribute.

Its obvious that some people no matter what they do will not grow very large muscles even with drugs (that would be like trying to turn a poddle into a pitbull). These people are rare.

Most people can build an average well built body, one that turns the heads of most people (except for the genetically gifted and drug fiends), especially if they pay attention to balance and leaness.

Some people build muscle so rapidly without drugs its scarey, typically these people are well built even before training. They can get big from looking at weights, much to the chagrin of people busting their butts in the gym. These people are a rarity.

So most people are not hardgainers. What most people try to do that slows down their gains is train like a drug user or a genetically gifted person, as a result little or no progress in made and the person then assumes that he/she is a hard gainer.

Building muscle is simple and easy once you understand the principles, it really is easy. If you are not seeing progress in development, strength, definition, whatever your goal, month to month you are not doing the right thing.

[MCWAY]

Everything exists on a bell curve, everything! whether it be intelligence, artistic ability, height, weight, skin color, ability to build muscle, even genital size.

Some people on the left side of the curve will have less of an attribute, most in the middle will an average amount of a particular attribute, and some on the right will have a lot more of a particular attribute.

Its obvious that some people no matter what they do will not grow very large muscles even with drugs (that would be like trying to turn a poddle into a pitbull). These people are rare.

Most people can build an average well built body, one that turns the heads of most people (except for the genetically gifted and drug fiends), especially if they pay attention to balance and leaness.

Some people build muscle so rapidly without drugs its scarey, typically these people are well built even before training. They can get big from looking at weights, much to the chagrin of people busting their butts in the gym. These people are a rarity.

So most people are not hardgainers. What most people try to do that slows down their gains is train like a drug user or a genetically gifted person, as a result little or no progress in made and the person then assumes that he/she is a hard gainer.

Building muscle is simple and easy once you understand the principles, it really is easy. If you are not seeing progress in development, strength, definition, whatever your goal, month to month you are not doing the right thing.

True!!

And for too many "hardgainers", that right thing is ingesting enough calories. Again, as Zulak stated in the aforementioned MuscleMag International issue (#145), the difference between gaining and not gaining can be as little as one piece of chicken a day.

If you need 4500 calories a day but only consume 4200, you will not grow. The "hardgainer's" best friend should be a blender, as he should be whipping up shakes on a regular basis, especially if his funds are limited. In my case, I took Mega Mass 2000 AND made shakes from eggs, milk, and cheap milk-and-egg protein powder.

Of course, there are drawbacks. Most notably, you'd better be within striking distance of a restroom throughout the day, as processing this much food will take a toll on your tummy.

But, once the pounds of muscle arrive and the weight, with which you once struggled, becomes lighter, you'll find that it's all worth it.

[gibberj2]

this thread is really stupid. there IS such a thing as a hardgainer. they can still gain but it is harder for them. if you only needed 1 gram of protein per body pound to build muscle then you're not a hardgainer and you're lucky. if you need 4500 calories to grow then you are a hardgainer even if when you get those calories you do grow. why? because it's HARD to eat 4500 calories. it's hard to have to rest more than others. so what is a hardgainer? when you were in high school and lifted weights and didn't know a damned thing about what you were doing but you grew and saw another kid who was like 110 pounds try the same thing and nothing happened for him... that's a hardgainer. the fact that he has to train differently and eat a lot more than you is what makes him a hardgainer. people who say there is no such thing as a hardgainer are saying there's no such thing as genetics which is stupid. maybe they're genetically mentally retarded.

[GET_BIGGER]

I agree Gibber, there is such a thing as hardgainers and easygainers.  I am luckily a easygainer and have some friends that have tried everything twice and can't gain 5 pounds. 

[mwbbuilder]

"hard" is only what you compare it to.

It really doesn't matter. It always come down to you versus you.

What benefit do you get by going around calling yourself a hardgainer?

Sympathy?

[myseone]

True!!

And for too many "hardgainers", that right thing is ingesting enough calories. Again, as Zulak stated in the aforementioned MuscleMag International issue (#145), the difference between gaining and not gaining can be as little as one piece of chicken a day.

If you need 4500 calories a day but only consume 4200, you will not grow. The "hardgainer's" best friend should be a blender, as he should be whipping up shakes on a regular basis, especially if his funds are limited. In my case, I took Mega Mass 2000 AND made shakes from eggs, milk, and cheap milk-and-egg protein powder.

Of course, there are drawbacks. Most notably, you'd better be within striking distance of a restroom throughout the day, as processing this much food will take a toll on your tummy.

But, once the pounds of muscle arrive and the weight, with which you once struggled, becomes lighter, you'll find that it's all worth it.

I agree a lot of people who find it hard to gain muscle mass don't eat enough food, couple this with the fact that these people usually in their teens and early 20's are very active and the possibility of gaining weight drops.

Another factor that comes in to play is growth from childhood to adulthood, teens and people in their early 20's will usually find it harder than adults to gain muscle because their metabolism is so lifted; in a few years if you keep going weight gain becomes easier.

[myseone]

this thread is really stupid. there IS such a thing as a hardgainer. they can still gain but it is harder for them. if you only needed 1 gram of protein per body pound to build muscle then you're not a hardgainer and you're lucky. if you need 4500 calories to grow then you are a hardgainer even if when you get those calories you do grow. why? because it's HARD to eat 4500 calories. it's hard to have to rest more than others. so what is a hardgainer? when you were in high school and lifted weights and didn't know a damned thing about what you were doing but you grew and saw another kid who was like 110 pounds try the same thing and nothing happened for him... that's a hardgainer. the fact that he has to train differently and eat a lot more than you is what makes him a hardgainer. people who say there is no such thing as a hardgainer are saying there's no such thing as genetics which is stupid. maybe they're genetically mentally retarded.

I think that most people will agree that their are hardgainers, there would have to be according to the bell curve rule. But these people are rare, how many people do you know who consume 4500 calories a day and only weight 110lbs?

All healthy trainees of average genetics will gain on such a diet (of course taking into account proper rest, training, moderate to low stress levels,etc.)

[myseone]

"hard" is only what you compare it to.

It really doesn't matter. It always come down to you versus you.

What benefit do you get by going around calling yourself a hardgainer?

Sympathy?

The term can be self fullfilling. I have seen some people cut back their training to extreme points because they did'nt think that they could recover from more work.

Of course you have to know yourself, and if you know that you don't build muscle rapidly with traditional methods, your should seek out other less traditional methods to gain.

[Acerimmer1]

this thread is really stupid. there IS such a thing as a hardgainer. they can still gain but it is harder for them. if you only needed 1 gram of protein per body pound to build muscle then you're not a hardgainer and you're lucky. if you need 4500 calories to grow then you are a hardgainer even if when you get those calories you do grow. why? because it's HARD to eat 4500 calories. it's hard to have to rest more than others. so what is a hardgainer? when you were in high school and lifted weights and didn't know a damned thing about what you were doing but you grew and saw another kid who was like 110 pounds try the same thing and nothing happened for him... that's a hardgainer. the fact that he has to train differently and eat a lot more than you is what makes him a hardgainer. people who say there is no such thing as a hardgainer are saying there's no such thing as genetics which is stupid. maybe they're genetically mentally retarded.

It's not a question of no such thing as genetics it's a question of the clearly obvious fact that nobody has any idea how much variation would exist in a bell curve of bodybuilders who trained ate rested and juiced/or didn't juice in identical measure.

I estimate of the bodybuilders who have the finances the desire the knowledge and the guts to really juice up, of the ones who survive without career ending complications or health scares, that have the right mental attitude and nutrition/training smarts who also put the work in elsewhere. I'd guess a reasonable percentage make it to the pro ranks. Most amatuer guys are not prepared to take the required levels of drugs the mere fact they're competing in a show where a pro card is up 4 grabs doesn't mean they're doing whatever it takes. What you read in the magazines about genetics is just hype!

[myseone]

It's not a question of no such thing as genetics it's a question of the clearly obvious fact that nobody has any idea how much variation would exist in a bell curve of bodybuilders who trained ate rested and juiced/or didn't juice in identical measure.

I estimate of the bodybuilders who have the finances the desire the knowledge and the guts to really juice up, of the ones who survive without career ending complications or health scares, that have the right mental attitude and nutrition/training smarts who also put the work in elsewhere. I'd guess a reasonable percentage make it to the pro ranks. Most amatuer guys are not prepared to take the required levels of drugs the mere fact they're competing in a show where a pro card is up 4 grabs doesn't mean they're doing whatever it takes. What you read in the magazines about genetics is just hype!

Awesome point. Definitely at the highest levels of the sport genetics are not as important, especially nowadays when asthetics has taken a back seat to raw size.

This is my list of what I think it would take to become a pro level bodybuilder nowadays, anyone can add to it if they feel fit (numbered in no particular order). Also these factors will differ from one bodybuilder to another

1) financial resources to afford immense amounts of food
2) financial resources to afford high to immense amounts of growth promoting and cutting drugs
3) the ability to assimilate large amounts of calories (can be increased with drugs)
4) the ability to tolerate large amounts of drugs for years without extreme side effects
5) the ability to train at a moderate to high intensity levels without getting hurt
6) the mental capicity to focus for years on end, to withstand monotenous meals. training, whatever..
7) the genetic ability to have decent muscular proportions
the right bone structure: wide shoulders, smallish waist (in comparrison, even though this is'nt so apparent today)
9) The ability to attain single digit levels of body fat while retaining muscle (drugs help a lot here)
10) The ability to subordinate other peoples needs over years


I'm sure their are many more

[MCWAY]

this thread is really stupid. there IS such a thing as a hardgainer. they can still gain but it is harder for them. if you only needed 1 gram of protein per body pound to build muscle then you're not a hardgainer and you're lucky. if you need 4500 calories to grow then you are a hardgainer even if when you get those calories you do grow. why? because it's HARD to eat 4500 calories. it's hard to have to rest more than others. so what is a hardgainer? when you were in high school and lifted weights and didn't know a damned thing about what you were doing but you grew and saw another kid who was like 110 pounds try the same thing and nothing happened for him... that's a hardgainer. the fact that he has to train differently and eat a lot more than you is what makes him a hardgainer. people who say there is no such thing as a hardgainer are saying there's no such thing as genetics which is stupid. maybe they're genetically mentally retarded.

Hold on a minute!

Nobody is discounting genetics at all. What separates the wheat from the chaff, in terms of building mass, is the successful don't use the "hardgainer" tag as a crutch or an excuse as to why they aren't growing.

The 110-lb kid doing the same thing as his buddy, yet not succeeding, is not necessarily an example of a hardgainer. It's an example of someone not doing what he needs to do to grow. If 4500 calories a day ain't working, why on Earth would you keep eating the same amount of food? That's the point: INCREASE THE CALORIES, until that scale starts moving and them weights get lighter. Consume 5000, 5500, 6000......whatever it takes (caloric-speaking) to get the job done.

When you go that high, most likely, you have to consume 50% of those calories in liquid form (MRP/Weight-gainers). But get the nutrients in the right quantity and quality in the body and it will grow.

Arnold Schwarzenegger said it best: Champions are the ones who find what WORKS BEST FOR THEM. Case in point: When he first came to America, The Oak tried making preacher curls the foundation of his biceps routine to improve his arms but got little results. He did that because he trained at Vince Gironda's gym, where Larry Scott trained and used preacher curls to build his legendary guns.

Did that mean that Schwarzenegger was a "hardgainer", when it comes to arm development? Hardly!! He simply understood that he wasn't Larry Scott. Preachers did wonders for Scott but little for Schwarzenegger. So, Arnold didn't blindly keep doing something that wasn't working. He kept pressing forward, until he found something that did.

And, that's the point.

[gibberj2]

to be the best you have to do whatever it takes which means drugs. this is a natural board and a natural will never be the "best". you do have to find what works for you personally but let's take two examples. 

-Trainee A needs 3000 calories to grow and trainee B needs 3600.
-Trainee A can train for long sessions without overtraining. Trainee B overtrains easily and needs to limit his physical activity outside the gym to make better gains.
-Trainee A has higher testosterone and slower metabolism. Trainee B has lower testosterone and a very fast metabolism.

Trainee B is a hardgainer. Hardgainer means that it's harder for you than it is for others.

If a Hardgainer and an easy gainer trained with extreme dedication, diet and supplementation the easygainer would win every time.

[Acerimmer1]

Manfred before
Not an unusual physique especially for a young man who seems to have an interest in boxing


Manfred after in the 90's B4 synthol plus strongmen can't afford to compramise strength with synthol anyway

[MCWAY]

to be the best you have to do whatever it takes which means drugs. this is a natural board and a natural will never be the "best". you do have to find what works for you personally but let's take two examples. 

-Trainee A needs 3000 calories to grow and trainee B needs 3600.
-Trainee A can train for long sessions without overtraining. Trainee B overtrains easily and needs to limit his physical activity outside the gym to make better gains.
-Trainee A has higher testosterone and slower metabolism. Trainee B has lower testosterone and a very fast metabolism.

Trainee B is a hardgainer. Hardgainer means that it's harder for you than it is for others.

If a Hardgainer and an easy gainer trained with extreme dedication, diet and supplementation the easygainer would win every time.

As I stated in my last post, you scenario merely shows that Trainee B CAN NOT do exactly what Trainee A does, if he wants to reach his goals.

Different does not automatically mean that A is more gifted than B (or vice versa). "A" can grow eating chicken breasts, egg whites, skim milk and tuna (packed in water). "B" probably can't grow as well eating like that; however, he CAN GROW as well (perhaps better) eating beef, whole eggs, whole milk, and tuna (packed in oil). How much more effort would "B" put into eating the foods he needs, as opposed to what "A" does? Virtually NONE!! A can of tuna in water is 250 calories; tuna in oil is about 400. Two cups of skim milk yields 160 calories and 16 grams of protein; the same amount of whole milk gives 300 calories and 16 grams of protein. "B" simply compensates for his faster metabolism by eating more calorie-dense food.

As for training, it doesn't matter how long/hard you train. If you don't recover, you don't grow, period. "B" could maximize his recovery ability by training no longer than an hour and not training to failure. If he recovers quickly from that style of training, he will grow.

It appears you equate "easygainer" primarily with someone who doesn't have to eat a lot and can train for long periods of time. But, if you look at a lot of bodybuilders who competed, that ain't always the case.

Would you consider former ASC Champion Mike Francois a "hardgainer"? Well, he once did. Francois was once a 185-lb lightheavyweight competitor, struggling to grow. He later hooked up with trainer Greg Greenzalis, a student of John Parillo. Greenzalis put Francois on a diet, bumping his caloric intake as high as 10,000 calories per day. In about two years, Francois became a 230-lb (competitive bodyweight) superheavyweight. He would later go one to win the NPC Nationals and four pro IFBB shows, including Night of Champions and, of course, the ASC title.

Francois has repeatedly stated that had he not increased his calories, he would not have achieved his physique goals.

As for your "easygainer" winning every time take, that really ain't the case. Frank Zane won the Mr. Olympia three-time, beating  more "gifted" guys like Mike Mentzer and Robby Robinson and Tom Platz, in the process.

Furthermore, genetic potential isn't always on the surface. Case #1: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Many think he was genetically gifted. But, the Oak states clearly that when he started training, he weighed 150 lbs, at 6'1". That don't exactly sound like a freak in the making to me.

Case #2: Lou Ferrigno. Did you see the pics of him as a teen, with his father in Pumping Iron? He looked like a twig. Matty Ferrigno stated that his son was so small, he couldn't even make the football team. Who'd ever predicted that Lou would become a 6'5", 275-lb monster in the 70s......or go on to become an even BIGGER 315-lb. behemoth in the 90s?

Throw in the aforementioned Mike Francois and my point is clear. And as Greg Zulak states in many of his articles (including those interviewing Francois), once bodybuilders achieve a certain amount of size, they can maintain it (and, in many cases, build more size) with fewer calories. Francois, after turning pro, dropped his calories to 5000 per day. Yet, he still made progress. He stated that he didn't need as much food to grow as he once did, as his metabolism had become more efficient.

I've experienced that firsthand. I don't need to eat 6500 calories per day anymore to keep my bodyweight around 230 lbs (or to get it bigger). Ten years ago, that wasn't the case. Had I not jacked up the food intake to that level, it would have taken me FAR LONGER to reach my goal, if I reached it at all. It may have taken a year (or longer) to put on those 21 lbs. Instead, it took three months (without anabolics, I might add).

It is indeed "hard" to make gains, if you continue doing something that doesn't work for you, simply because you've seen it work for someone else. As Zulak also stated in one of his articles on Mike Francois, "One type of training and one type of diet CANNOT and WILL NOT produce a championship body.

[gibberj2]

i think you may have a learning disability and that definately deserves quotation marks more than the word hard-gainer.